IMPACT: International Journal of Research in

Humanities, Arts and Literature (IMPACT: IJRHAL)

ISSN (P): 2347-4564; ISSN (E): 2321-8878
Vol. 7, Issue 7, Jul 2019, 125-140
© Impact Journals

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF REQUESTS IN STUDENTS TO FACULTY EMAILS

WRITTEN BY TUNISIANS

Imen Aribi Ben Amor

Research Scholar, Department of English, The Higher Institute of Languages of Gabes, Sfax, Tunisia

Received: 10 Jul 2019 Accepted: 26 Jul 2019 Published: 31 Jul 2019

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes email requests of different degrees of imposition produced by Tunisian postgraduate students
in elicited vs. Spontaneously written emails to their teacher. The natural email requests are composed of 371 e-requests
found in 182 emails written by 81 Tunisian postgraduate students. The other dataset comprised 13 6requests elicited from
a written discourse completion test (WDCT) elaborated by the same participants. Requests in the spontaneously produced
emails and the elicited texts were analyzed according to the level of directness of request strategies.This study examines to
what extent DCT requests performed by a group of Tunisian postgraduate students sent to their professor approximate
their naturally occurring e-requests with respect to the degree of directness. The aim of the comparison of naturally
occurring and DCT requests according to the degree of directness is to examine the validity of DCT data and to find out
whether an approximation to naturally occurring requests produced by the participants may be considered. The two sets of
data have fixed social parameters (low social distance between the interlocutors and social dominance of the addressee
over the addresser). The classification adopted for coding the collected email requests is based on Blum-Kulkaet al.,
(1989) and modified by Biesenbach-Lucas (2007) and Felix- Brasdefer (2012 a). A Chi square test is used to investigate
the differences. Results of DCT and natural requests display approximately the same degree of directness. Results reveal
that both of the naturally occurring requests and the DCT requests are direct. This reliance on directness is related to the
great use of expectation statements and mood derivable in natural requests as opposed to direct questions and need
statements in DCT requests. The non-significant differences emerged in the study show that DCT findings approximate
those elicited naturally. The study seeks also to examine whether the ranking of the imposition of requests affects the
choice of request strategies. The findings reveal that requests for information are not responsible for any difference
between the two types of data but requests for action display some significant differences and are therefore responsible for
this difference. As it is attested from the findings, it is argued that the WDCT requests could provide valid results if treated
with caution.

KEYWORDS: DCT E-Requests, Naturally Occurring E-Requests, Directness

INTRODUCTION

Learners’ performance of different speech acts was widely investigated within the field of interlanguage
pragmatics in both second and foreign language contexts. Blum-Kulka et al., (1989, p. 1) asserts that speech acts are “one
of the most compelling notions in the study of language use”.The speech act of request is one of the most challenging units
of interlanguage pragmatics for language learners as it is a prominent event in daily interactions. Requests have long

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.7985-This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 126 Imen Aribi Ben Amor

attracted the attention of a myriad number of researchers. It is attested in many research studies that requests are among the
most widely investigated speech acts, especially for L2 studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka, 1991; Trosborg, 1995). People produce
requests for various reasons in everyday interactions, either to obtain information or certain action, to seek support, or to
acquire assistance from others (Han, 2013). It is also worthy to mention that “requests differ cross-culturally and
linguistically in that they require a high level of appropriateness for their successful completion; very often they are
realized by means of clearly identifiable formulae” (Byon, 2004, p. 1674).

A request is among the speech acts that students primarily perform in their emails in the institutional setting.
Students always opt for requesting something from their interlocutors especially their teachers in order to achieve their
purposes. Students’ email requests cover a variety of issues, including for example requests for information about
academic matters, requests for feedback on their work, requests for assignment extensions, and requests for appointments
(Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011). Although a lot of work has been carried out on the speech act of request, mainly through
the analysis of the realization patterns of requests in a number of languages, there has been little work on e-requests. In the
context of academic email communication, the degree of politeness and formality and appropriate level of directness in
email requests has been addressed in a few studies. Economidou-Kogetsidis (2011) asserts that little work has been done
concerning how non-native speakers(NNSs) express their L2 email requests to faculty from a pragmatic perspective and on
those linguistic features that might violate the social appropriateness and power asymmetry characteristic of such status
incongruent relationships. This study attempts to fill in the gap in the literature and to contribute to the field of
interlanguage pragmatics through the study of email requests of a group of Tunisian postgraduate students in both elicited
and spontaneously produced speech acts.

Gathering data using two different data collection methods helps to provide more solid evidence of request pattern
preference of learners. It also compares requests gathered via the administration of a WDCT with naturally occurring
requests and examines the extent to which WDCT requests approximate natural requests according to the request strategies
and degree of directness,The study also aims to contribute to a better understanding of the validity of WDCTas a data
collection method in interlanguage pragmatics.

In the next sections, first I presents the WDCT test as a data collection instrumentand the advantages and
disadvantages associated with its application. Then I move on to briefly shed on light on requests in emails and refer, on
the one hand, to research on requests elicited through WDCT and on the other hand research on natural request emails
from students to faculty. The second part of the study presents my empirical investigation of Tunisian EFL learners’
requests with regard to directness and request strategies using the coding scheme of Blum-Kulkaet al. (1989) and modified
by Biesenbach-Lucas (2007) and Felix- Brasdefer (2012a).

Written DCTs as a Means of Data Collection

The Discourse completion test is a data collection method for controlled elicitation procedure, which has been
widely used in pragmatics research since its introduction in the 1980s. Kasper and Dahl (1991) defined DCTs as
“questionnaires including a number of brief situational descriptions followed by a short dialogue with an empty slot for the
speech act under study” (p. 221). According to Kasper and Dahl (1991) and Nurani (2009), DCT is one of the major
instruments most frequently used in pragmatic research. In Bardovi-Harlig’s (1999) words “the DCT is at once the most
celebrated and most maligned of all the methods used in cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatic research” (p. 238).

NAAS Rating: 3.10-Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 A Comparative Study of Requests in Students to Faculty Emails Written by Tunisians 127

WDCTs were originally developed in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realizations Projects (CCSARP) to compare the
speech act realization of request and apologies across thirteen languages (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). WDCTs have
beenused largely as an elicitation method to collect data in the field of cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics (Sasaki,
1998; Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Chaudron, 2005; Woodfield, 2008). As one of the most frequently used data collection
methods, DCTs have numerous advantages.

Billmyer and Varghese (2000) assert that the DCT could be considered as a resource for pragmatics testing and
teachingas there are to date no other sociolinguistic data collection instruments that have as many administrative
advantages as it.DCTs have been used frequently in the study of such commonly studied speech acts as far as requests and
apologies are concerned (Chaudron, 2005).DCTs have several advantages such as allowing researchers to gather much data
within a short period of time (Beebe and Cummings, 1985; Houck and Gass, 1996; Yamashita, 1996). Written DCTs do
not require transcription, which causes easier and faster data analysis process (Chaudron, 2005; Johnston et al., 1998).
Furthermore, DCTs allow its users to control different factors and variables such as the age of participants, gender, the
relative power relationship, social distance and the ranking of imposition (Beebe and Cummings, 1985; Houck and Gass,
1996; Kasper, 2000). Ogiermann (2009) notes that the DCT is theonly data collection method yielding large amounts of
fully comparable data in an unlimited number of languages, allowing for making generalizations about what is acceptable
and appropriate in a particular culture and comparing interlanguage politeness norms.

Despite its advantages, DCTs have received some criticism (as any other data elicitation method)mostly related to
its inability to capture the features of spoken language and natural interaction. Some researchers (Rose, 1992; Zuskin,
1993; Martinez-Flor and Uso-Juan, 2011) were skeptical about the authenticity of WDCTs. They think that DCTs have low
validity and convey little information about the relationship (e.g., status, positional identities) between the speaker and the
hearer. Additionally, DCTs are also criticized for their artificiality (Chen et al., 2015). Some researchers questioned the
authenticity of the situations described in WDCTs and argue that the subjects might situations that are different from the
real ones(Kasper & Dahl 1991, Rose 1992, Woodfield ; 2008). Other researchers point out that WDCTS, in fact, are
metapragmatic in the sense that what people think they would say in a hypothetical situation is not necessarily and exactly
the same as what they would actually say in a real-life interaction (Brown & Levinson 1987, Golato 2003, Tran 2004).

Indeed, the comparison of data collection methods has received increased attention in the last few decades (e.g.
Chen, Yang, Chang & Eslami 2015, Economidou-Kogetsidis 2013, FélixBrasdefer 2007, Kasper 2000, Golato 2003,
Rintell & Mitchell 1989). For example, Martínez-Flor (2013) makes a comparison of WDCT data and oral role-play data,
and found no statistically significant difference in lengths, types, and numbers of refusal strategies.Economidou-Kogetsidis
(2013) compared natural requests of NSs in service encounter scenarios to WDCT data with respect to the degree of
directness, syntactic and lexical internal modification and request perspective. She found that although WDCT requests
and natural requests displayed significant difference, at the same time similar trends were observable in terms of
directness and lexical modification, which indicates that the WDCT requests represent an approximation to the naturally
occurring requests, to a certain extent. (Economidou-Kogetsidis 2013, p. 33). Chen et al (2015) studied email requests of
Chinese ESL learners to faculty and compared natural email data to WDCT data. They found that the participants used
similar patterns of supportive moves in both datasets, however, request perspectives were different in certain situations and
participants generated significantly longer requests in the spontaneously produced emails than in the WDCT emails.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.7985-This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 128 Imen Aribi Ben Amor

In spite of its weaknesses, DCT is considered by some researchers among the most efficient elicited data
instruments in interlanguage pragmatic research (for eg, Nurani, 2009). Kasper (2000) argues that carefully designed
WDCTs are useful ways to gather information about speakers’ pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge (Kasper
2000: 329) rather than actual language usage, and are also informative about what ‘‘speakers tend to view as being
pragmatically appropriate linguistic behavior’’ (Woodfield & Economidou-Kogetsidis 2010: 89). Gathering data using two
different elicitation methods helps to provide more solid evidence of e-requests preferences of learners. It also serves to
compare elicited requests to those occurring in spontaneous emails, thus contributing to a better understanding of the
validity of WDCTas a method in interlanguage pragmatics.

Requests in Emails

Requests have long attracted the attention of a myriad number of researchers. According to several researchers,
requests are among the most widely investigated speech acts, especially for L2 studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka, 1991; Trosborg,
1995). The speech act of request is composed of two parts: the head act and the modifiers. Requests include a main
utterance, which carries the actual meaning of what is said or written. This is called a request head act. In addittion to the
head act, internal and/or external modifications are achieved through modifiers, but their presence is not essential for the
interpretation of the illocution (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984). According to Byon (2004), a request head act is the main
utterance that functions as a request and can stand by itself without any supportive move, required to convey the request.

Indeed, the focus of the analysis of requests in this study is on the head acts of requests whereas the modifiers are
not taken into consideration. Requesting is a very popular function of email as it is indicated in previous research on
politeness in emails(AlAfnan, 2014). The purposes of requests in emails include building a relationship, getting
information/advice about course materials, negotiating late work policy, challenging grades, showing interest in and
understanding of course material, and "getting on the instructor’s good side" (Martin et al., 1999, p. 160; Collins, 1998;
Payne, 1997; Poling, 1994, cited in Chen, 2006).

Research on Requests Elicited through WDCT

In most studies on requests addressed by students to faculty, data was collected primarily through DCTs(such as
Blum-Kulka, et al., 1989; Economidou-Kogetsidis 2008, 2009; Woodfield & Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010) or oral role-
plays (such as Felix-Brasdefer, 2007), because it is easier to elicit larger amounts of simulated data than to obtain natural
and authentic data (Chen et al, 2015). Among the few studies that examined email requests by students to their faculty
elicited through WDCTsis the study carried out by Woodfield and Economidou-Kogetsidis (2010) in which they compared
British NSs’ and EFL learners’ status-unequal requests to their professors. The CCSARP framework was used to code the
data. The findings found significant differences in internal and external modifications and in request perspective. It was
observed that EFL Learners’ overuse zero marking in internal modifications and overuse of preparators and supportive
moves. However, NSswere found to use more impersonal perspective and various mitigating devices.

Zhu (2012) investigated the directness level as well as the mitigation features and lexical and phrasal modifiers of
Chinese-English in email request strategies. He compared two NNS groups with different levels of English proficiency:
non-English majors (NEM) and English majors (EM). Zhu (2012) used a DCT to collect data and supplemented it with a
questionnaire to rate the level of the imposition of each email. The coding scheme adopted in this study is the CCSARP
modified by Biesenbach-Lucas (2007). Results revealed that both groups of the study have a low level of pragmatic

NAAS Rating: 3.10-Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 A Comparative Study of Requests in Students to Faculty Emails Written by Tunisians 129

linguistic competence and low proficiency in English, which caused a low level of socio-pragmatic competence, according
to the correlation analysis.

A recent study by Deveci and Hamida (2017) investigated the structure, request strategies, and modifications used
in student emails. It also aimedto evaluate whether students have obtained any benefit from instruction to improve their
request speech act use in emails. To collect data, a DCT was used to compare data from 105 Arab students and21 British
NSs. The researchers used Blum-Kulka and Olshtain’s (1984) framework. The findings revealed that Arab participants
have a tendency to use more direct strategies than conventionally indirect requests. The Arab students tended to use few
intensifiers in their requests compared to NSs. The study suggests that Arab students were influenced by their first
language when requesting because they rely heavily on imperatives. Results revealed also that instruction in the composing
of email requests in English did increase the students’ awareness of politeness strategies.

Research on Natural Request Emails from Students to Faculty

In addition to the research investigations on requests elicited through DCTs, many studies rely on authentic emails
to gather data. Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig’s study (1996) was among the first studies on student-faculty email requests.
This study focused on spontaneously email requests written by Ll and L2 college students to faculty, analyzed the email
requests of native and NNSs of English and investigated how students’ requests were evaluated by the faculty for their
positive or negative effect on the addressee. The authors found that NNSperformance of request strategies are different
from those of NS in the fact that they used fewer downgraders with negative impact, mentioned personal time needs more
often and acknowledged more imposition on the faculty members.

Biesenbach-Lucas (2002, 2004) applied the CCSARP framework to NSs and NNSs’ natural email requests of
faculty and found that the differences in the degree of the directness of the e-requests between the two groups were
comparatively small. However, NNSs tended to choose more direct strategies than NSs. NNSs were also found to employ
less syntactic modification than NSSs and made use of more lexical rather than syntactic modifiers.

Chen (2001) analyzed and compared natural email requests sent by Taiwanese (NNSs) and U.S. (NSs) graduate
students to their professors in relation to three types of requests: requests for an appointment, recommendation letter, and
special consideration. Chen’s study (2001) examined both emails to faculty whom students either knew or did not know.
Chen (2001) foundThe author reported differences in the amount of lexical and syntactic modification employed by
Taiwanese and American graduate students. She asserted that both groups favored query preparatory strategies and
Taiwanese students used different request strategies than the U.S. students due to culturally different perceptions of power
relations, familiarity and imposition.

Economidou- Kogetsidis (2011) examined spontaneously occurred email requests sent by Greek Cypriot
university students to faculty over a period of several semesters. The author analyzed the degree of directness, mitigation,
and forms of address found in the corpus. She reports that the subjects rely heavily on direct strategies and there is an
absence of lexical mitigators and inappropriate forms of address.Economidou-Kogetsidis (2011) also noticed the nonuse of
that the openings and closings by non-native speakers. She also asserts that such emails were perceived as impolite and
could be the source of misunderstanding between the interlocutors.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.7985-This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 130 Imen Aribi Ben Amor

Other studies on learners’ performance of email requests have examined whether their performance is conditioned
by the type of request and thus whether the ranking of the imposition of the request affects the choice of request strategies.
Bisenbach-Lucas (2007) study focused on e-politeness in natural email-requests of the students to faculty members. It
investigated how NSs and NNSs of English formulate e-requests to faculty and examine the degrees of directness and
indirectness in three types of requests (requests for an appointment, for feedback and for an extension of deadlines). E-
requests were analyzed from the pragmatic and lexico-syntactic point of view, the directness of requests and syntactic and
lexical politeness markers were analyzed according to Blum-kulka et al., (1989) framework. The findings of this study
revealed that students used applied more direct strategies for lower imposition request and more conventional indirect
requests. They also opt for politeness devices for higher imposition request. The researcher suggests that the level of the
imposition of the request influences the degree of the directness of the request.

Felix-Brasdefer (2012a) analyzed the request head acts and lexical and syntactic modifiers found in 240 email
requests written by US university-level students. Emails were written in L1 English and L2 Spanish to faculty members in
four situations that ranged from low to high imposition, namely requests for validation, requests for information, requests
for feedback and requests for action.The findings of study showed that the level of imposition of the requests affects the
distribution of email requests and use of strategies. Similarly, the use of strategieswas reported being conditioned by the
level of imposition. As far as the internal modification of requests is concerned, it was found that lexical and syntactic
modifiers predominated in L1 requests were less frequent in L2 request data.

METHOD

The current study analyses the requests formulated by a group of Tunisian postgraduate students from two
different sources (naturally occurring e-requests and DCT requests). It also examines the extent to which DCT requests
performed by Tunisian EFL students sent to their professor approximate their naturally occurring e-requests according to
the degree of directness. For this purpose, data were collected from both naturally occurring e-requests and DCT requests.

Participants

The emails writers are 81 Tunisian postgraduate students of English, 67 of whom are female and 14 are male.
While it is important to keep in mind that there may be gender preferences concerning the realization of requests (cf.
Kouletaki, 2005), this factor is not considered in this study due to feasibility concerns. The participants’ meanage is 30.5.
Their first language is Arabic and all of themknew the professor personally. They are enrolled in postgraduate programs,
sothey are supposed to be advanced at the level of language proficiency.

DCT Data

The participants were asked to complete an online email-like WDCT, which included two scenarios. The two
prompt situations were as follows :

Situation one states: You are in the process of conducting your research and you need to make clear some methodological
issues. You write an email to your supervisor in which you request him/her to meet him/her to discuss such points. What
would you say in this email?

Situation two states: You have finished writing your Ph.D. thesis and you want professor ‘X’, whom you were one of

NAAS Rating: 3.10-Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 A Comparative Study of Requests in Students to Faculty Emails Written by Tunisians 131

his/her students, to proofread it. You write an email to request your professor to proofread your work. What would you say
in this email?

To determine the degree of directness, the researcher used a modified version of request strategies that was
proposed initially by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and revised by Biesenbach-Lucas (2007) and Felix- Brasdefer for both
naturally occurred and DCT data.

Naturally Occurring Requests Data

The corpus of this study consists of 182 emails written by 81 Tunisian postgraduate students enrolled in several
institutions in Tunisia to their professor. The gathered emails were sent between the years 2010-2012. The data were
collected from the inbox of the researcher’s supervisor. The emails were naturally occurring discourse as opposed to
elicited discursive data.A total of 371 requests was found in the corpus because some participants formulated more than
one request in a single email. For ethicalconsiderations, the participants were contacted via emails and granted permission
for use of data for research The gathered emails are student-initiated interactions, which await a response. Both the natural
and the elicited requests were coded and analyzed with regard to thelevel of imposition and directness. To identify the type
and the frequency of requestive head acts of naturally occurring email requests, the data was analyzed, and the frequency
of occurrence and percentage of each type of strategy were calculated as it is clear from table 1 below.

Table 1: Type of Strategies and Degree of Requestive Directness: General Results (N: 371)
Strategy Number of Occurrence Percentage (%)
Mood derivables (imperatives) 54/371 14.55
Performatives 26/371 7.00
Want statements 21/371 5.66
Direct Need statements 31/371 8.35 73.85
Direct questions 47/371 12.66
like/appreciate statements 32/371 8.62
expectation statements 63/371 16.68
Conventionally indirect Query preparatory 80/371 21.56 21.56
Non-conventionally indirect Hints 17/371 4.58 4.58

The 371 requests are made up of 217 requests for information and 154 requests for action. Thus, 58.5% of the
requests are requests for information (eg. Please, sir, tell me when you’ll be available during this week (Email No. 3) )
while 41.5% of them are requests for action (eg. Please, check my report and sign it (Email No. 36)). The following pie
chart illustrates the distribution of requests across the corpus.

Figure 1: Distribution of Requests According to their Types across the Corpus

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.7985-This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 132 Imen Aribi Ben Amor

Both email requests for information and requests for action were investigated according to the coding scheme
suggested by Blum-Kulka et al., (1989) and revised by Biesenbach-Lucas (2007) and Felix-Brasdefer (2012a) as it was
done for the overall requests. The judgment of imposition is relatively subjective. The basis on which I decided to assign
requests to low vs. high imposition categories was how much action or extra effort they required on behalf of the teacher.
Requests for action were considered to be of a higher imposition than requests for appointment or information.

RESULTS

In this study, the differences between the spontaneously produced email data and the written DCT data are
examined with regard to their level of directness.

Comparison of the Degree of Directness of DCT Requests and Naturally Occurring Requests

The findings of the DCT situations were compared to those of natural requests. For this reason, the Chi-square
tests of independence using GraphPad Prism 6.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA) were used in the
statistical analysis. The analysis of the degree of directness revealed non-significant differences between the two sets of
data for direct strategies (X2= 0.804, df=1, P=0.369) and conventionally indirect strategies(X2 = 3.393, df=1, p=0.065, NS)
as it is shown from table 2 below. As it is clear from the table, the findings reveal a greater number of hints (non-
conventionally indirect strategies) in natural requests compared to DCT requests. As it can be seen, 17 hints (4.58%) were
found in natural requests compared to only one occurrence in DCT requests especially in requests for action where there is
a statistically significant difference at a p < 0.01 level. The statistical analysis shows a significant difference between the
two sets of data at the level of non-conventionally indirect strategies (X2 = 4.301, df=1, p=0.038). So, naturally occurring
requests use significantly more hints than the DCT ones.

It is found that 73.85% of natural requests compared to 69.85% of DCT requests are direct but the difference is
not significant. Results reveal that 16.98% of natural requests are expectation statements and 14.55% of them opt for mood
derivable. On the other hand, 15.44% of DCT requests are direct questions and 12.5% of them are need statements. This
difference was found to be statistically non-significant at a p < 0.01 level. Results further indicated that DCT requests
employ more conventionally indirect strategies with a percentage of 29.41% than that of natural requests (21.56%) but the
difference is non-significant.

NAAS Rating: 3.10-Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 A Comparative Study of Requests in Students to Faculty Emails Written by Tunisians 133

Table 2: Degree of Directness/Indirectness: Main Strategies and Sub-Strategies

(Naturally Occurring Requests (N: 371)/DCT Requests (N: 136))
Natural DCT Requests
Chi Square Test Results
Requests(N :371) (N : 136)
Most direct
Mood derivables
73.85%(274/371) 69.85% (95/136)
Performatives X2= 0.804, df=1, P=0.369 NS
14.55%(54/371) 10.29%(14/136)
Want statements X2 = 1.552, df=1, p=0.212, NS
7% (26/371) 3.67%(5/136)
Need statements X2 = 1.924, df=1, p=0.165,NS X2 = 2.417,
5.66%(21/371) 9.55% (13/136)
Direct questions df=1, p=0.120,NS X2 = 1.994, df=1,
8.35% (31/371) 12.5% (17/136)
like/appreciate p=0.157,NS X2 = 0.658, df=1, p=0.417,NS
12.66%(47/371) 15.44%(21/136)
statements X2 = 0.539, df=1, p=0.462,NS
8.62%(32/371) 6.61% (9/136)
expectation X2 = 2.059, df=1, p=0.151,NS
16.98%(63/371) 11.76% (16/136)
statements
Conventionally X2 = 3.393, df=1, p=0.065,NS
21.56% (80/371) 29.41% (40/136)
indirect
Query preparatory X2 = 4.301, df=1, p=0.038
4.58% (17/371) 0.001%(1/136)
Non-conventionally
indirect: Hints

Comparison of the Degree of Directness in Requests for Information in DCT and Naturally Occurring Requests

The aim of this part of the analysis is to find out whether there is a significant difference of directness in relation
to the degree of requests’ imposition manifested in requests for information and requests for action. Thus, the first set of
data comprises requests for information considered as low impositions while the second set is made up of requests for
action which are considered as high impositions. As far as requests for information are concerned, it is found that the
results of natural and DCT requests are quite similar. As it attested from the statistical analysis, there are non-significant
differences between natural and DCT requests at any level of strategies and sub-strategies.

As it is clear from the table below, 74.65% of natural requests are mostly direct compared to 76.31% of DCT
requests. As it is indicated from the table, it is found a higher number of expectation statements (8.75%) and
like/appreciate statements (6.91%) in natural requests than in DCT requests. On the other hand, the DCT included more
direct questions (27.63%), mood derivable (15.78%) and need statements (10.52%).

Table 3: Degree of Directness/Indirectness: Main Strategies and Sub-Strategies Used in Requests for Information
(Naturally Occurring Requests (N: 217)/DCT Requests (N: 76)
Natural requests
DCT requests (N : 76) Chi-square test results
(N : 217)
Most direct
74.65%(162/217) 76.31%(58/76) X2=0.083, df=1, P=0.77,NS
Mood derivables
13.82%(30/217) 15.78% (12/76) X2 = 0.176, df=1, p=0.674, NS
Performatives
10.59%(23/217) 6.57% (5/76) X2 = 1.052, df=1, p=0.304, NS
Want statements
7.37% (16/217) 6.57%(5/76) X2 = 0.052, df=1, p=0.817, NS
Need statements
5.52%(12/217) 10.52%(8/76) X2 = 2.209, df=1, p=0.137, NS
Direct questions
21.65%(47/217) 27.63%(21/76) X2 = 0.239, df=1, p=0.624, NS
like/appreciate statements
6.91%(15/217) 2.63% (2/76) X2 = 1.887, df=1, p=0.169, NS
expectation statements
8.75%(19/217) 6.57%(5/76) X2 = 0.345, df=1, p=0.551, NS
Conventionally indirect
Query preparatory
23.50%(51/217) 22.36%(17/76) X2 = 0.040, df=1, p=0.840, NS
Non-conventionally
indirect
1.84% (4/217) 1.31% (1/76) X2 = 0.093, df=1, p=0.759, NS
Hints

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.7985-This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 134 Imen Aribi Ben Amor

Comparison of the Degree of Directness in Requests for Action in DCT and Naturally Occurring Requests

Results of requests for action indicate some significant differences between natural and DCT results. Natural
requests employ more non-conventionally indirect strategies (8.44% compared to 0% in DCT requests) - statistically
significant difference at a p < 0.01 level, p= 0.0028). DCT requests employ more conventionally indirect strategies than
natural occurring requests (38.33% compared to 18.83% for natural requests- statistically significant difference at a p <
0.01 level; p= 0.0028). On the other hand, the findings revealed a non-significant difference between natural and DCT
requests at the level of direct strategies (X2=2.49, df=1, P=0.11).

As far as the sub-strategies are concerned, compared to DCT requests, results also reveal that natural requests
employ more expectation statements (28.57% Vs 18.33%; statistically significant difference at a p < 0.01 level, p= 0.0007 )
and mood derivable (15.58%Vs 3.33%; statistically significant difference at a p < 0.01 level; p=0.013).On the other hand,
DCT requests results indicate that they include more want statements (13.33% Vs 3.24% for natural requests, statistically
significant difference at a p < 0.01 level; p=0.001) and need statements (15% Vs 12.33% for natural requests having
statistically significant difference at a p < 0.01 level, p=0.031). Thus, as it attested from the findings, it is found that
requests for information are not responsible for any difference between the two different data but requests for action
display some significant differences and are therefore responsible for this difference as it is shown from table 4.

Table 4: Degree of Directness/Indirectness: Main Strategies and Sub-Strategies Used in Requests for
Action (Naturally Occurring Requests (N: 154)/DCT Requests (N: 60)
Natural Requests (N : 154) DCT Requests (N : 60) Chi Square Test Results
Most direct
72.72%(112/154) 61.66%(37/60) X2=2.49, df=1, P=0.11
Mood derivables
15.58%(24/154) 3.33% (2/60) X2 = 6.072, df=1, p=0.013
Performatives
1.94%(3/154) 0% (0/60) X2 = 1.185, df=1, p=0.276
Want statements
3.24%(5/154) 13.33% (8/60) X2 = 71.81, df=1, p=0.0001
Need statements
12.33%(9/154) 15% (9/60) X2 = 4.698, df=1, p=0.031
Direct questions
0%(0/154) 0% (0/60) X2 = 0.176, df=1, p=0.674,
like/appreciate statements
11.03%(7/154) 11.66% (7/60) X2 = 3.589, df=1, p=0.058
expectation statements
28.57%(44/154) 18.33% (11/60) X2 = 11.381, df=1, p=0.0007
Conventionally indirect
Query preparatory
18.83%(29/154) 38.33% (23/60) X2 = 8.928, df=1, p=0.0028
Non-conventionally
indirect
8.44%(13/154) 0% (0/60) X2 = 5.393, df=1, p=0.02
Hints

DISCUSSIONS

The aim of the comparison of naturally occurring requests and DCT requests according to the degree of directness
is to investigate the reliability of DCT data and to find out the extent to which an approximation to naturally occurring
requests produced by the participants may be considered. The two sets of data have fixed social parameters
(i.e. social authority of the addressee over the addresser and low social distance between the interlocutors).Results of DCT
and natural requests displayed approximately the same degree of directness. The analysis revealed that with regard to
directness, email requests of Tunisian postgraduate students tended to be direct.

The widespread use of expectation statements is behind the reliance on directness (e.g. I expect to hear from you
soon (Email No. 126)) and also of mood derivable(e.g. Please send me your comments (Email No. 157)) in natural requests
as opposed to direct questions (e.g. Is it possible to fix an appointment to meet you) and need statements (e.g. I need your

NAAS Rating: 3.10-Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 A Comparative Study of Requests in Students to Faculty Emails Written by Tunisians 135

help in proofreading my dissertation to for DCT requests). Some researchers (e.g.: Economidou-Kogetsidis 2005, Várhegyi
2017, Aribi ;2018) argue that L1 transfer is behind the extensive use of direct request strategies by EFL learners. Kasper &
Rose (2002) assert that language proficiency may be another reason since students with lower proficiency may focus on
getting the intended illocution across, and fail to pay attention to the actual realization of the locution. However, in the
current study, the participants have a good proficiency of language since all of them have their BA in English and are
pursuing postgraduate programs. Therefore, it seems that the reason behind the choice of direct strategies is L1 transfer.

It is also worthy to note that even though indirect strategies are the preferred way of NSs request realizations,
comparative studies have found that NSs also employ direct (mood derivable, hedged performatives and want statements)
strategies under certain circumstances (Biesenbach-Lucas 2007, Pan 2012) and modified by a wide range of lexical devices
and syntactic structures (Dombi, 2019).In this study, In DCT requests, it is found that the requests were more
conventionally indirect but more non-conventionally indirect strategies were found in natural data (17 occurrences),
especially in relation to requests for action. Hints are rare in email requests presumably because as suggested by previous
studies the written interaction lacks the contextual cues that make hints appear more natural and less face-threatening
(Dombi, 2019).Biesenbach-Lucas asserts that hints are not often found in elicited data (such as in DCTs)because the task is
to write a request and there is no social context in which the face is actually threatened by using more direct language
(2007, p. 68).

Furthermore, results reveal that there are some differences in the distribution of certain strategies and
sub-strategies and this depends on the level of the imposition of requests. More specifically, natural requests for the
information included a higher number of expectation statements and like/appreciate statements than that of DCT requests
as opposed to more direct questions and mood derivable in the DCT data but the difference is non-significant.
The non-significant differences which emerged in the study show that the findings from the DCT are approximative to
those elicited naturally.

As far as requests for action are concerned, results reveal that natural requests employ more expectation
statements and mood derivable and also more hints. On the other hand, DCT requests for action results indicate that they
include more want statements and need statements. Yet, importantly, the differences between these sub-strategies were
significant. It could be said that both of the naturally occurring requests and the DCT requests were more direct. However,
the similar proportions of the two sets of data in terms of requests strategies produced seemed to indicate that the DCT
requests could indeed approximate natural data to some extent.The results of this study seem to support
Economidou-Kogetsidis’ (2013) claim that “WDCT requests can indeed approximate natural data to a certain extent”
(2013, p. 34).

Many studies claim that elicited data from WDCTs differs from naturally occurring data in the sense that when
instructed, the subjects will write down what they believe they would say in different situations, but that is not necessarily
the same as what they would actually say in real situations. However, as Felix-Brasdefer (2010) points out, despite the
criticism, WDCT is being widely utilized in various contexts, which is most certainly due to its potential to systematically
gather large amount of data.

DCTs can provide researchers with useful information to elicit request strategies. As Kasper and Rose (2002)
argue, the DCT ‘‘can provide useful information about speakers’ pragmalinguistic knowledge of the strategies and

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.7985-This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 136 Imen Aribi Ben Amor

linguistic forms by which communicative acts can be implemented’’ (p. 96). Indeed, because the DCT data can
approximate natural data, it could be saidthat the DCT is ‘‘a good way to discover what semantic formulas are frequently
used (or expected) in performance of a speech act’’ (Beebe and Cummings, 1996, p. 73) and can help in the creation of an
initial classification of semantic formulas and strategies that will occur in natural data (Wolfson et al., 1989, p. 184). Data
obtained from WDCT should, however, be treated with caution: it can provide valuable insights into participants’
pragmalinguistic knowledge and what they tend to view as socially accepted norms, but it does not necessarily reflect the
linguistic forms that speakers would actually use in real-life situations (Dombi, 2019). As Kasper argues, WDCT data can
tell us what “L2 speakers know as opposed to what they can do” (Kasper 2000, p. 330).

CONCLUSIONS

This study examines how Tunisian post graduate students formulate requests to faculty in elicited vs.
Spontaneously written emails. The aim of the study was to find out what characterizes participants’ inter language requests
in terms of directness. The analysis revealed that requests tended to be overwhelmingly direct. The study also aimed at
contrasting spontaneously produced and elicited data. Therefore, the findings of the DCT situations were compared to
those of natural requests.The analysis of the degree of directness revealed non-significant differences between WDCT data
and natural requests for direct strategies and conventionally indirect strategies but a significant difference between the two
sets of data at the level of non-conventionally indirect strategies. It is found that naturally occurring requests use
significantly more hints than the DCT ones.

The current study also aims to find out whether there is a significant difference of directness in relation to the
degree of requests’ imposition manifested in requests for information (considered as low impositions) and requests for
action (considered as high impositions). As it attested from the findings, it is found that requests for information are not
responsible for any difference between WDCT data and natural requests but requests for action display some significant
differences and are therefore responsible for this difference. As such, it can be claimed that the WDCT as a data collection
instrument is not without validity. Thus, this paper suggests that the written DCT can be used as an effective data
elicitation method if treated with caution.In line with Economidou (2008), the use of a WDCT should be used along side
other research instruments and tested against other data (i.e. naturally occurring data, role-play data, verbal reports,
interviews)through methodological triangulation.

The study has been limited in terms of the samples. Therefore, a larger number of emails would be beneficial in
order to ensure that the data collected from the sample can be generalized and to provide more solid statistical results,
Further more, the number of the informants who agree to participate in the study is relatively small, so, for future research,
a larger number of participants from a variety of universities could be considered. Further research with other types of data
are therefore needed in order to test the validity of the WDCT further Another suggestion in future research is to ask
faculty members how they perceive received emails.The current study is based solely on the directness level of requests
head acts, future research is needed to analyze the requests’ internal and external modifiers.

NAAS Rating: 3.10-Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

A Comparative Study of Requests in Students to Faculty Emails Written by Tunisians 137

REFERENCES

1. AlAfnan, M. A. Politeness in Business Writing: The Effects of Ethnicity and Relating Factors on Email
Communication. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4, 275-289, 2014.

2. Aribi, I. Analysis of academic email requests written by Tunisian post graduate students. Journal of Literature,
Languages and Linguistics 47, 1–11, 2018

3. Bardovi-Harlig, K. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for

acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677-713, 1999.

4. Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. Speech actperformance: A function of the data collection procedure? Paper
presented at TESOL ‘85, New York, 1985

5. Beebe, L., Cummings, M. C. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: how data collection
method affects speech act performance. In Gass, S.M., Hoyce, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges
to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp. 65—68, 1996.

6. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. How’ s tomorrow? Pragmati cfeatures of student requests for appointments. Paper
presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Salt Lake City,
UT, 2002.

7. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. Speech acts in email: A new look at pragmatic competence. The Annual Convention of the
American Association of Applied Linguistics, Portland, 2004.

8. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-
native speakers of English. Language Learning and Technology,11, 59-81, 2007.

9. Biesenbach-Lucas, S., and Weasenforth, D. Please help me": L1/L2 variations in solicitations in electronic
conferences. The 20th Annual Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), Madison, WI, 2000.

10. Billmyer, K., Varghese, M. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: effects of enhancing discourse
completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21, 517—552, 2000.

11. Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: The social context of Internet discourse. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 11,117-134, 2002.

12. Blum-Kulka S., and Olshtain, E. Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns
(CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213, 1984.

13. Blum-Kulka, S. Inter language pragmatics: the case of requests. In: Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L.,
Sharwood Smith, M., Swain, M. (Eds.). Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research: A Commemorative
Volume for Claus Faerch. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Avon, (pp. 255-272), 1991.

14. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. Cross-cultural pragmatics:Requests and apologies. Norwood,
N.J.:AblexPublishing Corporation, 1989.

15. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. Politeness: some universals in language use. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1987.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.7985-This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

138 Imen Aribi Ben Amor

16. Byon, A. (2004). Sociolinguistic analysis of Korean requests: pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36,
1673 – 1704, 2004.

17. Chaudron, C. Data collection in SLA research. In C. J. Doughty, and M. H. Long (Eds.). The hand book of second
language acquisition (pp. 762-827). Blackwell publishing, 2005.

18. Chen, C-F. E. Making e-mail requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. American students. the Annual Meeting of the
American Association for Applied Linguistics, St-Louis, MO, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 461
299), 2001.

19. Chen, X., Yang, L., Chang, Q. &Eslami, Z. Pragmatic usage in academic email requests: A comparative and
contrastive study of written DCT and email data. Lingue Linguaggi13, 75–85, 2015.

20. Collins, M. The use of email and electronic bulletin boards in college-level biology. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 17, 75-94, 1998.

21. Deveci, T., & Hamida, I. B. The request speech act in emails by Arab university students in the UAE. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 194-214, 2017.

22. Dombi, J., Inter language requests in elicited vs. Naturally produced emails Argumentum15,
DebreceniEgyetemiKiadó, 179-200, 2019.

23. Economidou-Kogetsidis Maria, Strategies, modification and perspective in native speakers’ requests : A
comparison of WDCT and naturally-occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics53, 21–38, 2013.

24. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. ‘Yes, tell me please, what time is the midday flight from Athensarriving ?’:Telephone
service encounters and politeness. Journal of InterculturalPragmatics2.3, 253–273, 2005.

25. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2008). Internal and External mitigation in inter language request production: The
case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 111-138, 2008.

26. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2009). Interlanguage request modification: The use of lexical/phrasal downgraders
and mitigating supportive moves. Multilingua,28, 79-112, 2009.

27. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). Please answer me as soon as possible: Pragmatic failure in non-native
speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3193-3215, 2011.

28. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2013). Strategies, modification and perspective in native speakers’ requests: A
comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 21-38, 2013.

29. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2015): Teaching email politeness in the EFL/ESL classroom. ELT Journal 69.4,
415-424, 2015.

30. Felix-Brasdefer, C. Natural speech vs. elicited data: a comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican
Spanish. Spanish in Context, 4, 159-185, 2007a.

31. Felix-Brasdefer, C. Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strat-egies in Latin American
Spanish and American English. Multilingua22.3, 225–255, 2003.

NAAS Rating: 3.10-Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

A Comparative Study of Requests in Students to Faculty Emails Written by Tunisians 139

32. Felix-Brasdefer, C. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: a cross-sectional study of learner
requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 253-286, 2007b.

33. Félix-Brasdefer, C. E-mail requests to faculty: E-politeness and internal modification. In Maria Economidou-
Kogetsidis and Helen Woodfield (Eds.). Inter language request modification, 87–118, 2012.

34. Golato, A. (2003) :Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring
talk. Applied Linguistics24, 90–121, 2003.

35. Han, X. A Contrastive Study of Chinese and British English Request Strategies Based on Open Roleplay. Journal
of Language Teaching and Research, 4, 5, 1098-1105, 2013.

36. Hartford, B. S. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. "At your earliest convenience:" A study of written student requests to
faculty. In L. F. Bouton (Eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning, Monograph Series, Vol. 7 (pp. 55-69).
Urbana Champaign, University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language (DEIL), 1996.

37. Houck, N. and Gass, S. M. Non-native refusal: A methodological perspective. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.).
Speech acts across cultures (pp. 45-64). Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1996.

38. Johnston, B., Kasper, G. and Ross, S. Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19,
157–182, 1998.

39. Kasper, G. Data collection in pragmatics research. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Eds.). Culturally Speaking: Managing
Rapport through Talk across Cultures. Continuum, London, (pp. 316-369), 2000.

40. Kasper, G., and Dahl, M. Research methods in inter language pragmatics. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 13, 215-247, 1991.

41. Kasper, G., and Rose, R. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Oxford, 2002.

42. Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., and Mottet, T. P. (1999). Students motives for communicating with their instructors.
Communication Education, 48, 157-164, 1999.

43. Martinez-Flor, A., and Uso-Juan, E. Research methodologies in pragmatics: Eliciting refusals to requests. ELIA,
11, 47-87, 2011.

44. Nurani, M. L. Methodological issue in pragmatic research: Is Discourse Completion Test a reliable data
collection instrument Journal of Sosioteknologi, 17, 667-678, 2009.

45. Ogiermann, E. Politeness and in-directness across cultures: a comparison of English, German, Polish and
Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 189 – 216, 2009.

46. Pan C. Inter language requests in institutional e-mail discourse. Inter language Request Modification, 9, 217-
227, 2009.

47. Payne, C. Opening the door with e-mail: From no tech to low-tech. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No.ED412936, 1997.

48. Poling, D. J. E-mail as an effective teaching supplement. Educational Technology, 34, 53-55, 1994.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.7985-This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

140 Imen Aribi Ben Amor

49. Rintell, E. & Mitchell, C. Studying request and apologies: An inquiry into method. In: Blum-Kulka, S., House, J.
&Kasper, G. (eds.): Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex, 248–272, 1989.

50. Rose, K. Speech acts and questionnaires: the effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 49-62, 1992.

51. Sasaki, M. Investigating EFL students production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and
role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484, 1998.

52. Tran, G.Q. Revisioning methodologies in cross-cultural and inter language pragmatics. English.Edu: Journal of
Language Teaching and Research4.1, 25–49, 2004.

53. Trosborg, A. Inter language pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.

54. Várhegyi, N. Magyar any any elvűtanulókkérésistratégiái angol nyelven. Argumen-tum13, 112-125, 2017.

55. Wolfson, N., Marmor, T., and Jones, S. Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In Blum-
Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (Eds.). (pp. 174-196), 1989.

56. Woodfield, H. & Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. “I justneed more time” : A study of native and non-native students'
requests to faculty for an extension. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Inter language Communication
29.1, 77–118, 2010.

57. Woodfield, H. Problematisingdiscoursecompletiontasks: Voices from verbal report. Evaluation and Research in
Education, 21, 43-69, 2008.

58. Yamashita, S.O. Six measure of JSL pragmatics. Honolulu, Second LanguageTeaching and Curriculum Center of
University of Hawaii atManoa, 1996.

59. Zhu, W. A study of upward request emails: Managing a harmonious relationship in three academic discourse
communities of Britain and China (Doctoral dissertation, the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.), 2012.

60. Zuskin, R. D. Assessing L2 sociolinguistic competence: In search of support from pragmatic theories. Pragmatics
and Language Learning, 4, 166-182, 1993.

NAAS Rating: 3.10-Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us